Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. The "ladylike/masculine" dynamic was the way to go and it continues to work worldwide, as seen in countries where the divorce rate is still insignificant. But that pairing has been ruined in the USA, in part by feminism. Now you have women who've slept with dozens of men by the time they're married. Nothing ladylike about a woman who gets around. You have men who put in more care into their appearance than their significant other. Nothing masculine about men who want to be pretty.
I'm not against feminism at a moderate level. But geneder roles have been defined for ages. The more males and females work out of their roles the more damaging it'll be - the divorce rate can only go up.
Feminism is on par with Civil Rights in every sense, and is absolutely nothing but a good thing in terms of social justice. That said, I think our economic expectations for our workforce have not adjusted to the reality of what feminism wrought. With each passing generation, more and more women are taking the jobs that men used to solely possess (including cops, firefighters, soldiers, manual labor, office managers, etc.). This has created a baseline of unemployment/underemployment in this country that didn't exist before, because in the past we merely accepted the fact that most women did not work. (This also spawned the issue of in equality in terms of women being paid less, because employers saw them as a cheap version of a man.)
That, combined with so many massive corporations shipping manufacturing overseas, has created a new economic reality that we have not come to grips with.
This isn't some bitter, "working man's" complaint, but rather an observation about a new reality. And it may even be off-point from the OP's main thrust, which is fine with me, since the initial question is stupid, IMO. Although marriage dynamics have changed as a result of this economic reality. Plenty of insecure men have a real problem not being the primary breadwinner in a household, which causes turbulence.
Yes. The "ladylike/masculine" dynamic was the way to go and it continues to work worldwide, as seen in countries where the divorce rate is still insignificant. But that pairing has been ruined in the USA, in part by feminism. Now you have women who've slept with dozens of men by the time they're married. Nothing ladylike about a woman who gets around. You have men who put in more care into their appearance than their significant other. Nothing masculine about men who want to be pretty.
I'm not against feminism at a moderate level. But geneder roles have been defined for ages. The more males and females work out of their roles the more damaging it'll be - the divorce rate can only go up.
Gender roles were defined by men who ordered them by fiat. Women had no say. It's the definition of pomposity to assume that old gender roles are something that women, as a bloc, should adhere to in order to keep our society resembling a man's idea of "moral" or "correct."
If people want to continue to live their private lives through traditional gender roles, with each spouse having equal say, I have no problem with that. But decrying the freedom of women to make their own choices is a caveman notion. Men can sleep around with a dozen women prior to marriage, but if women do it, we have a problem? Come on.
And lastly, what's wrong with an increasing divorce rate (or better yet, a lower marriage rate)? 70 years ago, there were virtually no domestic violence laws on the books, and women suffered in silence through abusive 50-year marriages. People pine for the 1950s like it was utopia, yet those people usually aren't women. Isn't it good to rid ourselves of that slavery?
Gender roles were defined for ages because women could not avoid pregnancy and due to the nature of the weapons could not fight back. The roles have changed because of contraception that may be used without the males consent place women in control of their own fecundity and hand held firearms let even the smallest woman effectively fight back
Women, in this most fortunate society, are no longer your desperate toys. Cope with it.
Neither immaturity nor feminism destroyed marriage for my generation. An economic realization that marriage is not feasible for us with the aspirations of those who want more led to a decline in marriage. It costs A LOT of money to live in major metro areas. Student loans aren't going to pay themselves. Marriage often leads to children (that's the point right?) You take all that and then you have the trappings of a decline in marriage. For those that did not go to college, your wages have fallen since the 1970s...that is if you have a job. The blue collar professions make it harder to get married. In fact, the recession caused an odd blip of higher marriage rates for those with a college degree than those without. Usually, it is the other way around (roughly the same, but still slightly higher).
More and more people are going to graduate school. Why take on the debt of another person? Why take off all that time before you get your diploma because of a baby? Simply put increased competition has made having children and getting married harder and harder.
The fact of the matter is that increased economic pressures with new social realities have staved off marriage talk for those under 30.
Gender roles were defined for ages because women could not avoid pregnancy and due to the nature of the weapons could not fight back. The roles have changed because of contraception that may be used without the males consent place women in control of their own fecundity and hand held firearms let even the smallest woman effectively fight back
Women, in this most fortunate society, are no longer your desperate toys. Cope with it.
And men should embrace this. Isn't it WAY hotter to make love to a woman who is free to leave, and is in bed with you because she WANTS to be, and not due to economic desperation, or emotional duress?
I'm all for equal rights, but I do think it's gone a little too far. If a woman chooses not to follow the feminist ideals and not work, be a housewife, or whatever, then she is often considered weak and stupid by those who claim to protect her freedom to live how she wants to live.
I'm all for equal rights, but I do think it's gone a little too far. If a woman chooses not to follow the feminist ideals and not work, be a housewife, or whatever, then she is often considered weak and stupid by those who claim to protect her freedom to live how she wants to live.
Has feminism destroyed relationships and marriage for those under 30 in the U.S. I don't think all aspects of feminism are bad. However I do think that since the definition and ideology is so broad, that much of feminism actually ended up hurting us.
No. Patriarchal-ism has destroyed it, as it destroys everything.
I think some of the people in this thread have precious little experience with women that aren't inflatable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
